Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

An evidence-based case for quality online initial teacher

education

Lina Pelliccione, Valerie Morey, Rebecca Walker, Chad Morrison

Curtin University, Australia

The rapid expansion of fully online delivery of initial teacher education (ITE) seen in the past
decade has generated some concerns about impact on teacher quality. This is set within
broader, sustained concerns about ITE generally. Much of the criticism of online ITE has
been made without sufficient evidence to support the claims, largely due to the still-nascent
evidence base. The data presented here contributes to that evidence base by providing
demographic and academic achievement insights for cohorts of graduate teachers (N = 2008)
across the years 2012 to 2018 who have engaged in fully online ITE at an Australian
university. The literature has recognised the traditional barriers to accessing higher education
for many of these students, including women, the mature-aged, and those with family and
work responsibilities. Performance data for online ITE students within their programs
demonstrates that they are breaking through these barriers associated with the digital divide.
Analysis of who these people are, where they come from, and how they are performing
provides valuable insights into online ITE, at a time when the value of broadening access to
education and digital equity are being widely acknowledged.

Implications for practice or policy:

• The educational community should consider the achievement of online ITE students and
contributions they can make to education and schools.
• The educational community should consider the contributions online ITE can make to
broadening access to higher education and digital equity.

Keywords: online education, initial teacher education, digital equity, academic achievement,
professional experience, student demographics

Introduction
Sustained concerns about the quality of Australian initial teacher education (ITE) abound within political
discourse (see Stokes, 2018) and underpin current drivers for policy reform to strengthen ways of preparing
teachers for contemporary classrooms (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014). This
ongoing critique has recently evolved to encompass a focus on the quality and performance of online ITE.
Some concern is connected to the increased rate of online engagement that has occurred over the past
decade (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2018). This mode of
engagement in ITE is relatively new, due to rapid advances in technology and digital communications.
These advances have seen online enrolments increase by 11% since 2006 to 25% of total ITE enrolments
in 2015 (AITSL, 2017). Over the same period, the rate of on-campus engagement of ITE students has fallen
by 17% to 60% of total ITE enrolments. In addition, more students are engaging in blended modes of on-
campus learning. This rapid change in the way that students engage in ITE has some observers very worried
(see Stokes, 2018), and has also been reported within literature as being grounds for concern for some
involved with the provision of ITE (Downing & Dyment, 2013; Kehrwald & McCallum, 2015; Mills,
Yanes, & Casebeer, 2009; Thornton, 2013).

Despite these contemporary concerns about online ITE and its perceived negative impact on graduate
teacher quality, emerging evidence highlights the important contributions that online ITE is making to the
preparation of teachers from diverse backgrounds and for diverse communities, and as a force for change
towards greater equity of access for marginalised groups. Emerging data is illustrating that graduate
teachers who have studied online perform well during their studies. Up until now, the absence of empirical
evidence relating to the pedagogy, practices, and outcomes of online ITE has contributed to uncertainty
about its contributions and value (AITSL, 2018); however, the data in this study contributes to a strong
case for those previous perceptions to be revisited. Until recently, research of online ITE courses focused
mostly on single units of study within a course and not on courses in their entirety nor on the full extent of

64
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

outcomes of these units or courses. What is evident through an analysis of emerging course-level data is
the need for a more complete and accurate understanding of the demographic profiles of those studying
online and quantifiable data about their achievements and outcomes at the point of graduation and beyond.

Background
There has been a dramatic increase in students engaging in online degrees across courses and institutions
around the world since their inception in the 1990s (Khoo, Forret, & Cowie, 2014). Most forms of distance
learning are now characterised by either partially or fully online modes of delivery. The need for student
flexibility and the greater competition amongst higher education institutions are some key factors driving
the popularity of online modes of study (de Freitas, Morgan, & Gibson, 2015; Ragusa & Crampton, 2017).
Online courses utilise technologies to enable students to access synchronous and asynchronous learning
opportunities and materials at times that suit them, while also being part of a community of practice (Clarke,
2009) to scaffold their own and their peers’ knowledge through the course.

Improvements in the capacity of technologies have facilitated greater accessibility to online learning, whilst
social change is demanding that access to higher education be universally equitable (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2009). In Australia, there has been a massive expansion of online higher education, making it
possible, in many cases, for students from more diverse backgrounds to study for the first time (O’Shea,
Stone, & Delahunty, 2015). An Australian university explained the diversity of their students and reported
that 73% of their online students are mature age females, 43% of their online students are the first in their
family to attend university, 48% have dependent children and 61% are working more than 30 hours a week
(Lambrinidis, 2014).

Students opting to study ITE online in Australia are surpassing the growth pattern of online higher education
both nationally and internationally. In 2016, online ITE courses were observed as growing at a rate six
times faster than any other online course in the country, with 22,100 students (or 25% of all ITE students)
studying fully online (AITSL, 2018, p. 5). Of this cohort, about one third are studying at a university that
is not in their state or territory of residence (AITSL, 2018). Notwithstanding this substantial differential in
uptake trends, research in this specific sector has lagged behind that of research into online higher education
in general. As such, the literature reviewed in this article will include both online ITE specifically as well
as online higher education more broadly.

Diverging perspectives about online higher education and ITE

Whilst online ITE has been embraced by increasing numbers of pre-service teachers (AITSL, 2018), it
continues to attract some critical views within the wider community. The rise of online ITE has resulted in
a diversity of opinions and experiences about its effectiveness. There is general division amongst many
academics about whether or not it is possible or appropriate to prepare students for teaching in an online
environment (Downing & Dyment, 2013; Kehrwald & McCallum, 2015; Thornton, 2013). Some academics
have expressed their distrust for the validity of online learning and concern for professional learning of
students (Mills et al., 2009; Thornton, 2013). Further, academics have reported that students lack sufficient
opportunity for observational modelling related to preparing to teach (Thornton, 2013).

Studies also suggest that employers show bias towards hiring graduates who have completed a traditionally
orientated on-campus mode of study over those who chose online engagement and tend to show negative
attitudes towards online education in general (Carnevale, 2007; Gaytan, 2009; Huss, 2007). Amongst other
concerns, graduates of online courses are perceived as being less well-developed in the communication
skills highly desired by employers (Carnevale, 2007; Gaytan, 2009; Huss, 2007). These perceptions are
reflected within current statements and a policy shift in New South Wales that differentiates graduates on
the basis of delivery mode (NSW Education Standards Authority, 2018). This article will argue that such
positions fall short of adequately understanding the profile of learners within online ITE programs, the
quality of their experiences, and the contributions that they are making to schools and communities once
entering the workforce.

As educators have made their way into the online teaching space, some have reported that teaching online
has effected a positive change in their on-campus teaching, which have become more blended, thereby
generating further online resources for all of their students (Stacey & Wiesenberg, 2007). They have

65
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

reflected that whilst working online results in an increased workload, they became more disciplined, better
organised, and more reflective and innovative with all their teaching practices (Stacey & Wiesenberg,
2007). This transition to blended and online teaching has also resulted in improved communications and
relationships with students more generally (Kehrwald & McCallum, 2015). Importantly, blended and online
teaching and learning in ITE is also informing pedagogy and practice in ways that are positively impacting
on pre-service teachers’ participation, engagement, and outcomes (Hunt, 2015). New ways of
understanding the impact of technology-enhanced teaching and learning are also being coupled with
insights into how learners respond and contribute to their own learning in powerful new ways (Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, Glazewski, Brush, Aslan, & Zachmeier, 2018).

Broadening access to higher education and ITE

Students are reshaping the higher education landscape as more choose study modes and availabilities that
enable them to meet existing commitments alongside their studies. Those choosing online study in general,
and ITE courses in particular, are contributing significantly to this reshaping. This shift has been facilitated
in part by the Australian Government’s agenda to increase participation in higher education, specifically
for those groups traditionally locked out, including students from low socio-economic status (SES)
backgrounds (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). In response, most major higher education institutions
around Australia now offer some form of online delivery within their ITE courses. The literature has
reported that students choosing to study online ITE have similar demographics to the general online higher
education population in that they are more likely to be of mature age, in the paid workforce, and female.
Studies have reported that online ITE students reside in diverse geographical locations across Australia
(Tomas, Lasen, Field, & Skamp, 2015). Dyment, Downing, Hill, and Smith (2018) identified that online
students were more likely to be mature-aged, female, in the paid workforce, have various family
commitments, reside in regional and rural locations, and are located in lower socio-economic areas. In a
study conducted by Heirdsfield, Davis, Lennox, Walker, and Zhang (2007), the majority of online ITE
students resided in a regional area. Stone’s (2012) findings contradicted those presented in online ITE in
that the majority of online students reside in a major capital city in Australia. Nevertheless, these shared
characteristics include many of those associated with the digital divide (Thomas et al., 2018).

Online students explain their choice to study in this delivery mode in a variety of ways, including the
flexibility, convenience, and accessibility it offers, the self-paced learning, and also perceptions that online
study is easier to navigate than on-campus engagement (He, 2014; Heirdsfield et al., 2007; Stone, 2012).
The flexibility and increasing access to online technology widen the modes of learning and choices to a
greater number of students, who are able to balance work, family, and other responsibilities at the same
time as completing university studies (Stone, O’Shea, May, Delahunty, & Partington, 2016). Online ITE
has the capacity to promote and enhance digital equity, particularly in open units, which can provide greater
access to these courses. These units provide academic and social spaces for students to build capacity with
digital technologies, learning platforms, and software with peers who possess similar skills and knowledge
upon course entry. Providing access and generating engagement in carefully scaffolded ways through
online courses is therefore implicated in the outcomes of those courses. The nature of engagement in online
learning can equip those students with technological knowledge and skills, which can positively impact
their personal lives, study, and careers (Restal & Laferrière, 2015). Stone et al. (2016) discussed the
widening participation that online higher education affords students from diverse backgrounds, and
particularly open-entry courses, which offer students from non-traditional backgrounds tertiary entrance
pathways, improved access, and opportunities to higher education. Importantly, the ways in which this
engagement in higher education equates to quality outcomes is firmly attached to how the Australian
Government seeks to measure quality (Department of Education and Training, 2017). There are many
persistent barriers to broadening participation in the Australian context (Meuleman, Garrett, Wrench, &
King, 2014; Wood, Gray-Ganter, & Bailey, 2016); therefore, capturing emerging data about what is
working within online ITE for the diverse student cohort that is choosing this pathway, why it is working
for them, and addressing factors of social inequality is of critical importance to the ways that online ITE
continues to evolve.

Outcomes associated with online higher education and ITE

The quality and rigour of online higher education and online ITE continue to be scrutinised, and claims
have been made without evidence. The online delivery mode is often viewed as lesser than the on-campus

66
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

delivery mode. In a meta-analysis conducted by Jahng, Krug, and Zhang (2007) examining published
research that compared online post-secondary education and face-to-face education, no significant
difference was found in student achievement between these delivery modes. Heirdsfield et al. (2007)
reported that online and on-campus students shared similar learning experiences in early childhood
education online units. From the perspective of schools in New South Wales, a study of 4202 online ITE
student teachers on their professional experience placement found that school principals anecdotally
reported they could not tell the difference between student teachers who had studied face to face or online
(Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards New South Wales, 2014). McMahon and
Thompson (2014) interviewed 26 online ITE students before and after their practical teaching experience.
Their data suggested the online ITE students were feeling confident in their teaching knowledge and skills
and ready to be teachers.

Eom, Wen, and Ashill (2006) and Dyment and Downing (2018) reported that online higher education can
be the superior mode of delivery if critical provisions such as accessible technologies and timely instructor
feedback are met. Dyment and Downing (2018) detailed a study which utilised web conferencing to support
the development of ITE professional attributes through professional conversations. ITE students reported
deeper levels of engagement and satisfaction than other activities, including tutorials conducted in a face-
to-face mode. Further, Pittaway and Moss (2014) have looked in detail at the experiences of online students.
They reported that initially students feel overwhelmed and unsure, but as they move through the course,
most students experience positive growth in their confidence and self-esteem and perform better than face-
to-face students in many cases, as reported by O’Shea et al. (2015).

Castle and McGuire (2010) provided more evidence that student learning and satisfaction are less
dependent on delivery mode per se and more dependent on other factors, such as technologies employed
and instructional design. Another study, conducted by Paechter, Maier, and Macher (2010), involved 2196
students from 29 universities in Austria, examining their expectations and experiences of studying units
online. The results of this research revealed that tutors’ expertise in online learning and their support for
student learning in this context were most predictive of student achievement and satisfaction. A systematic
review conducted by Broadbent and Poon (2015) reported that online student self-regulation strategies,
such as time management and critical thinking, were positively related to academic outcomes. Therefore,
in examining online education, analysis must carefully consider multiple factors within the delivery mode
before any evidential claims can be made.

Methodology
Enhanced knowledge of measures of engagement, achievement, and outcomes through online ITE are
critical to understanding the impact that this delivery mode may be having on graduate teachers. This
research aimed to examine online ITE through enhanced understandings about students engaging in this
mode of study through examining demographic information and their academic achievement at course
completion. Specifically, the research aimed to illustrate:

• demographic profiles of fully online ITE students, including their locations and factors associated
with selecting online engagement as their preferred option; and
• achievement data, captured at course completion in the form of course weighted average (CWA)
and final professional experience (FPE) percentage result, from successive cohorts of fully online
pre-service teachers from 2012 to 2018.

Research design and participants

Case studies are often utilised to study a phenomenon in a real-life context (Grauer, 2012) and
accommodate for the use of multiple forms of data collection (Yin, 2018). As such, a single case study
design was employed in this research to undertake a comprehensive investigation of online ITE students
within a school of education in an Australian university. The case study approach was descriptive and aimed
to present an account of the phenomenon under study (Merriam, 1998).

The research setting was an Australian university which is a large ITE provider for fully online courses
(AITSL, 2018). The participants comprised a purposive sample of convenience and were fully online ITE
students completing their Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood) and Bachelor of Education (Primary

67
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Education) degrees in the years 2012 to 2018 in the School of Education through its external partner. These
degrees are Australian Qualifications Framework Level 7, four-year, professionally accredited ITE courses
with the last unit being the FPE. There are multiple entry pathways to these degrees, with students satisfying
one of the following:

• the successful completion of four level one ITE units which are nominated as open to study for
all;
• successful completion of two open level one ITE units plus evidence of English competency;
• successful completion of four undergraduate (or higher) units at an Australian university;
• Australian Tertiary Admission score of 70 or greater with English, English Literature or English
as an Additional Language;
• successful completion of identified vocational diplomas and certificates with English competency
(or higher);
• successful completion of the Special Tertiary Admissions Test in identified elements; or
• recognised Australian university enabling or bridging degrees.

Participants were located in all Australian states and territories (N = 2008), with 21 of them located outside
of Australia. All data was de-identified and aggregated to ensure anonymity of participants. University
approvals were gained to collect, analyse, and report on the de-identified data.

Data collection

The demographic and achievement data were collected across the years 2012 to 2018 for graduating
students in each of these years. Within these years, there were four data collection points to coincide with
the four study period course completion times. This totalled 28 data collection points. The data was
collected via university student database and data management systems – these being Student One, Business
Intelligence Tool, and the professional experience database system SONIA.

The demographic data collected included gender (female/male); age (years); SES (low, middle, high,
other); and location of residence (urban, regional, remote, other) at time of course completion. Additional
demographic data was collected, but as individuals could potentially be identified, this data is not reported.

Within the university systems, the SES definition is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
definition. The SES is referred to as a ranking system to explain a student’s social and economic well-being
based on their residing region (ABS, 2016b). The ranking is derived from multiple measures within the
Population and Housing Australian Census (ABS, 2016b). The SES reported in this research is based on
the student’s home address at course completion using the ABS postcode classification. The four SES
categories are low, middle, high, and other. A low SES is assigned if the student’s percentile score is ≤ 25,
middle if the percentile is > 25 and < 75 and high if the percentile is ≥ 75. The other classification is utilised
for this research to describe international students, unknown postcode values and data not entered.

The residing location is a university description of the student’s home address location at course
completion, in accordance with the categories urban, regional, remote, and other. These categories are based
on the ABS postcode classification (ABS, 2016a). The urban, regional, and remote classifications are for
domestic students. The category other is used in this research to classify international students, unknown
postcodes, data not entered, and undefined citizenship status.

The achievement data collected comprised CWA at course completion (percentage score) and FPE
placement result (percentage score). The CWA is a weighted average percentage score that defines how
well a student has performed in studying the course. The FPE is a full-time placement of one school term’s
duration in a school setting with students and is referred to within the university as the internship. The FPE
is awarded a percentage score derived by averaging the percentage mentor teacher rating and the percentage
supervisor rating. The FPE result is the student’s first attempt score, inclusive of fail scores and zero scores
awarded in situations such as withdrawal from the placement.

Additionally, the 2018 employment status of participants was included in the data collected. This
information is collected by the university external partner through unit enrolment processes and reports on

68
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

students enrolled in 2018 in at least one unit in the field of education delivered through the university’s
School of Education in a fully online mode (N = 4858). It is included to provide a further insight into the
profiles of fully online ITE students. This data is provided by the fully online students in accordance with
the categories reported in the Results section.

Data analysis

The demographic and achievement data collected from the three university systems was firstly collated into
one database in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. Missing data was then identified and sought. In cases
where the data could not be sourced, the participants’ information was removed. Once the database was
complete, data was then de-identified. Following this, student numbers, CWA, and FPE mean averages and
standard deviations were calculated for each year, and according to age (in groups < 25, 25–39, ≥ 40 years),
SES, and residing location. Differences in CWA and FPE means according to age, SES, residing location,
and year were determined along with effect sizes using Cohen’s d. The effect size of 0.2 was interpreted as
small, 0.5 as medium, and 0.8 as large (Cohen, 1988). Whole cohort correlational analysis between CWA
and FPE were conducted.

The 2018 employment status of participants is reported separately as a percentage score. This data was
categorised, collected, and analysed by the university’s external partner. The categories were full-time
employed, part-time employed, self-employed, employed in family business, home duties, employer, full-
time student, seeking full-time work, seeking part-time work, unemployed nor seeking work, and not
applicable. Students could assign themselves to only one category.

Results
The demographic data and relating CWA and FPE scores across the years 2012 to 2018 will be reported
according to the categories of gender, age, SES, and residing location. Following this, differences in means
for years, gender, age, SES, and residing location will be identified. This aims to identify patterns in
demographics and achievement. In order to understand the whole cohort of participants (N = 2008), the
overall mean average for CWA and FPE and the correlation between them are reported in Table 1.

Table 1
Participant CWA and FPE mean and standard deviation
Score Mean SD Correlation
CWA 71.29 6.11 0.35*
FPE 83.14 12.93
*p < 0.05, N = 2008

The bivariate Pearson correlation analysis (two-tailed) conducted determined there was a statistically
significant moderate correlation between the CWA and FPE for the whole participant cohort across all
years 2012 to 2018 as reported in Table 1.

Gender

The gender profile of participants (female and male only) across all years 2012 to 2018 was 91% female
and 9% male students. The participants’ CWA and FPE mean and standard deviations according to gender
are reported in Table 2.

Table 2
Participant CWA and FPE mean and standard deviation according to gender
Score Gender n Mean SD Difference
T Effect size Cohen’s d
CWA Female 1825 71.31 6.12 2.66* 0.11
Male 183 70.05 14.02
FPE Female 1825 83.47 12.75 3.63* 0.27
Male 183 79.80 14.20
*p < 0.05

69
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

An independent-samples t test was run to determine if there were differences between gender for both CWA
and FPE mean scores. There was a homogeneity of variances for CWA mean scores, as assessed by
Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .294), and for FPE mean scores (p = .513). A statistical
difference between male and female CWA means was revealed, M = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (C)I)
[0.339 to 2.184], t(2006) = 2.659, p < .05, and also for FPE means, M = 3.669, 95% CI [1.688 to 5.650],
t(1972) = 3.632, p < .05. Effect size was then examined using Cohen’s d, which revealed that the differences
between female and male for both CWA and FPE scores were small effects.

Age

The age profile of participants (< 25, 25–39, ≥ 40) across all years 2012 to 2018 were 6% < 25, 62% 25–
39, and 32% ≥ 40. The participants CWA and FPE mean and standard deviations relating to age are reported
in Table 3.

Table 3
Participant CWA and FPE mean and standard deviation according to age
Score Age n Mean SD
CWA < 25 129 69.49 5.88
25–39 1248 70.83 6.05
≥ 40 631 72.26 6.12
FPE < 25 129 82.99 11.67
25–39 1248 83.57 12.77
≥ 40 631 82.32 13.45

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess statistical differences between age and CWA, then age and
FPE. In relation to CWA, there was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of
variances (p = .566) and statistical difference was identified F(2, 2005) = 17.06, p < .05. Bonferroni post
hoc analysis revealed that there was a range of statistical differences. The < 25 age group CWA when
compared to the ≥ 40 age group CWA showed a mean difference of 2.77, 95% CI [1.36, 4.17], which was
statistically significant (p < .05). A medium Cohen d effect size was observed in this comparison at 0.46.
The 25–39 age group CWA in comparison to the ≥ 40 age group CWA detailed a statistical significant (p
< .05) mean difference of 1.43, 95% CI [.718, 2.13]. Within this comparison, a small Cohen’s d effect size
was found at 0.24. There were no statistical differences between age and FPE.

SES

The SES of participants (low, middle, high, other) across all years 2012 to 2018 were 25% low, 57% middle,
17% high, and 1% other. The participants’ CWA and FPE mean and standard deviations associated to SES
are reported in Table 4.

Table 4
Participant CWA and FPE mean and standard deviation according to SES
Score SES n Mean SD
CWA Low 493 70.68 5.92
Middle 1140 71.32 6.09
High 346 71.47 6.39
Other 29 71.32 6.06
FPE Low 493 81.90 13.00
Middle 1140 83.56 12.76
High 346 83.56 13.21
Other 29 82.59 14.18

One-way ANOVA was undertaken to determine differences between SES and CWA and between SES and
FPE. However, there were no statistical differences found.

70
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Residing location

The residing locations of participants across all years 2012 to 2018 were 73% urban, 24% regional, 2%
remote, and 1% other. The participants’ CWA and FPE mean and standard deviations relating to residing
location are reported in Table 5.

Table 5
Participant CWA and FPE mean and standard deviation according to residing location
Score Residing location n Mean SD
CWA Urban 1462 71.07 6.17
Regional 489 71.35 5.75
Remote 33 72.74 7.78
Other 24 73.24 6.28
FPE Urban 1462 83.28 12.85
Regional 489 82.86 13.05
Remote 33 81.00 12.76
Other 24 82.71 15.81

One-way ANOVA was run to determine differences between residing location CWA and between CWA
and FPE. However, there were no statistical differences found.

Course completion year

The course completion cohort for 2012 to 2018 CWA and FPE mean and standard deviations were
calculated. These are reported in Table 6.

Table 6
Course completion cohorts 2012 to 2018 CWA and FPE mean and standard deviation
Score Completion year n Mean SD
CWA 2012 76 74.26 6.53
2013 237 73.08 6.07
2014 294 72.30 6.09
2015 344 70.12 5.96
2016 394 71.09 5.53
2017 360 70.53 6.16
2018 303 70.01 6.12
FPE 2012 76 82.04 14.61
2013 237 83.50 12.52
2014 294 83.80 12.29
2015 344 83.12 13.10
2016 394 84.56 12.29
2017 360 83.43 13.01
2018 303 80.29 13.58

To investigate patterns in difference in achievement across the years 2012 to 2018, a one-way ANOVA
was conducted. This was used to assess statistical differences between year of completion and CWA and
then between year of completion and FPE. In relation to the CWA, there was homogeneity of variances, as
assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances (p = .402) and statistical difference identified f(6, 2001)
= 13.41, p < .05. Bonferroni post hoc analysis revealed that there were a range of statistical differences.
These are reported in Table 7.

71
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Table 7
CWA significant mean differences across years 2012 to 2018
Course Year significant difference CWA MD
completion
year
2012 2015 2016 2017 2018
MD = -4.15, 95% MD = -3.17, 95% MD = -3.73, 95% MD = -4.25, 95%
CI [-6.46, -1.84] CI [-5.46, -.886] CI [-6.04, -1.43] CI [-6.59, -1.91]
(p < .05) (p < .001) (p < .05) (p < .05)
Cohen’s d = 0.66 Cohen’s d = 0.52 Cohen’s d = 0.59 Cohen’s d = 0.67
2013 2015 2016 2017 2018
MD = -2.96, 95% MD = -1.98, 95% MD = -2.54, 95% MD = -3.06, 95%
CI [-4.50, -1.42] CI [-3.48, -.482] CI [-4.07, -1.02] CI [-4.64, -1.48]
(p < .05) (p < .05) (p < .05) (p < .05)
Cohen’s d = 0.49 Cohen’s d = 0.34 Cohen’s d = 0.42 Cohen’s d = 0.50
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MD = -2.18, 95% MD = -1.76, 95% MD = -2.28, 95%
CI [-3.62, -.727] CI [-3.19, -.327] CI [-3.77, -.786]
(p < .05) (p < .05) (p < .05)
Cohen’s d = 0.36 Cohen’s d = 0.29 Cohen’s d = 0.38

The significant differences between the 2012 course completion year CWA scores and 2015, 2016, 2017,
and 2018 observed a medium effect size. This also occurred for 2013 in comparison to 2015, 2017, and
2018 and for 2014 to 2015 and 2018. A small effect size was found in comparing 2013 and 2016 CWA and
for 2014 and 2017. There were no identified significant statistical differences in comparing the CWA means
across the years 2015 to 2018.

With regards to the FPE, there was homogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of
variances (p = .065) and statistical difference was identified F(6, 1967) = 3.47, p = .02. Bonferroni post hoc
analysis revealed that the only statistical difference was between 2018 and the years 2014, 2016, and 2017.
These are reported in Table 8.

Table 8
FPE significant mean differences across years 2012 to 2018
Course completion year Year significant difference FPE MD
2018 2014 2016 2017
MD = 3.51, 95% MD = 4.27, 95% CI MD = 3.14, 95% CI
CI [.27, 6.75] (p < [1.24, 7.30] (p < [.06, 6.23] (p < .05)
.05) .05) Cohen’s d = 0.24
Cohen’s d = 0.27 Cohen’s d = 0.27

The significant differences between the 2018 course completion year CWA scores and 2014, 2016 and
2017 observed a small effect size. There were no identified significant statistical differences in comparing
the FPE means across the years 2012 to 2017.

Employment status

The employment status of students in 2018, with at least 1 subject enrolment (N = 4858) delivered by the
university’s School of Education in a fully online mode, is presented in Figure 1.

72
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Full-time employed 33%

Part-time employed 31%

Home duties 12%

Full-time student 9%

Unemployed nor seeking work 7%

Not applicable 3%

Self-employed 2%

Seeking part-time work 1%

Seeking full-time work 1%

Employed in family business 0%

Employer 0%

Figure 1. Fully online cohort employment status 2018

Discussion
This research aimed to examine and describe the profile of ITE students studying fully online at an
Australian university. Data was collected through university systems, collated into a large database, and
analysed. Analysis of results reflected existing literature, in that students entering ITE are predominately
female (Tomas et al., 2015), aged 25 to 40 (Heirdsfield et al., 2007), residing in urban areas (Stone, 2012),
and middle SES areas. What this analysis contributes to the literature is their academic achievement. Their
CWA hovered around distinction level (approximately 70%–80%) and their performance in their FPE were
consistently rated at high distinction (more than 80%), with a positive correlation identified between them.
These findings present a pattern of successful academic achievement within theory and practical application
components of ITE, across a range of factors and years. These outcomes were achieved within the complex
circumstances of mature-aged learning (Gall, Evans, & Bellerose, 2000), with many of these students
achieving strong outcomes whilst managing paid work, care responsibilities and home duties. This data
challenges scepticism that may be felt towards the capacity of fully online ITE courses to adequately
prepare classroom-ready teachers (King, 2002; Ouzts, 2006).

Gender, age, and online ITE

Of those participants completing an online ITE course during the data collection period, the overwhelming
majority (91%) were women (n = 1825). While 6% of the entire online cohort were younger than 25 years,
the majority were aged between 26 and 39 years (61%) with another 32% aged 40 years or older. This data
reflects what is known about the complex lives these students live, regularly raising families and providing
primary care for children and spouses, while often also informally and formally engaging with education
settings while completing their studies (Beutel & Crosswell, 2013; Richardson & Watt, 2006). These
experiences relating to gender and age provide further insights into the strength of CWA and FPE
performance of these students. This graduate cohort demonstrated a consistent capacity to achieve strong
outcomes across course components and time, despite the challenges of their personal circumstances
beyond study. In these ways, online ITE provides the mode of study that allows for engagement and
achievement.

Location and access to ITE

The fully online ITE courses at this university afford opportunities for students to effectively engage in
higher education regardless of location. Data collected over a sustained period of 7 years demonstrates that

73
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

regional and remote populations were able to study ITE and remain in their communities whilst doing so
at performance and achievement levels comparable to their metropolitan peers. Whilst the residing location
of the majority of pre-service teachers was located in urban districts, approximately 25% of this study’s
ITE student population lived in regional areas. This is similar to the national regional population, which
was reported as being approximately 27% of the Australian population in 2011 (ABS, 2011). Similarly, the
students completing an ITE course in a remote location accounted for 0.02%, which is equivalent to the
national population of 0.02% of Australians residing in a remote location (ABS, 2011). These consistent
rates of enrolments from regional and remote students across years show a pattern of regional and remote
Australians taking up higher education.

Of all participants, 73% (n = 1462) of online ITE students within this study were located in urban settings.
Many people living within urban settings, including within outer-urban settings and on the urban/regional
fringe, identify online ITE as a mechanism for engaging in higher education.

Importantly, analysis revealed no statistical difference between residing location and CWA nor between
residing location and FPE within these cohorts, despite the known challenges of studying ITE online (Muir
et al., 2019). These results suggest that there is potential for these students to remain in these urban, regional
and remote areas, fulfilling the needs of their local school communities (McDonnell et al., 2011).

SES and access to ITE

Online ITE provides accessibility to higher education for populations, despite the known barriers of SES
(Stone et al., 2016). The provision of high-quality online teaching and learning for ITE students provides
equitable access to those who, in many cases, would otherwise be unable to access it. Data analysed here
identified 493 students from low-rated SES backgrounds who successfully completed their ITE course
during the data collection period. Analysis of their academic results revealed successful academic
achievement across their courses, including professional experience, with no significant mean differences
in CWA and FPE between them and their 1486 peers from middle and upper SES backgrounds. While it is
anticipated that low SES will be an influential factor in other analysis of online ITE (including attrition and
time to completion), low SES is not evident in the performance outcomes of the target cohort at course
completion.

The significance of demographics within online ITE

This article calls for a wider consideration of the data pertaining to online ITE. It aims to debunk the myths
that online ITE does not prepare quality teachers and does not make meaningful contributions to
communities and the teaching workforce more generally. It argues that ITE can be successfully delivered
in an online mode. Further, it provides evidence that student demographics and life experiences result in
successful ITE students who obtain high levels of achievement.

Analysis of data across residing location and SES reveals no statistical mean differences in CWA and FPE.
This analysis emphasises that regardless of location and complexities associated with life, quality online
ITE is a vehicle for equitable access to teaching futures. The data has the potential to disrupt perceptions
about a correlation between downward trending of teacher quality and the trends reported by AITSL (2017)
towards fewer students entering ITE courses with a high Australian Tertiary Admission score. These
concerns were voiced widely in the media following the release of the AITSL report (The Guardian, 2018;
SBS, 2018). However, not only do these fully online ITE courses respond to calls for capable graduates to
enter the teaching workforce in Australia (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, 2014), they also
provide some confirmation of the findings of Wright’s (2015) study, which concluded that “the data suggest
that a variety of selection methods and criteria are required and ensuring high standards within ITE courses
is the best way to control for quality of graduates” (p. 1). These findings, combined with the numbers of
students residing in regional and remote Australia, help to address the intent of policies and initiatives to
enable greater accessibility to higher education (e.g., OECD, 2018) and the provision of quality ITE in
these areas. Furthermore, these findings emphasise the contribution that online ITE is making to digital
equity through these graduates successfully utilising technology and acquiring skills and knowledge to gain
a higher education qualification. These outcomes are inherently good for graduates of fully online ITE
courses as they are seen to improve their personal lives while also enhancing career opportunities (Restal
& Laferrière, 2015). Additionally, enhanced knowledge, skills and capacity to teach and learn with and

74
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

through new technologies are fundamental to strengthening the Australian teaching workforce in this
domain (Falkner & Vivian, 2015), and this has significant implications for future teacher practice.

Conclusion
In recent times, the criticism of and bias towards online ITE have not considered who these students are
nor their achievement in their courses. A range of data was collected and analysed to examine online ITE
students’ achievement and outcomes. The demographic profile of online students and their academic
performance at course completion provides indicators of positive impact measures of success that warrant
attention. Emerging from the study were demographic indicators that suggested motivations for
commencing ITE are related to access and convenience, and that the outcomes associated with this
engagement can be measured and reported in the form of high CWA and FPE results. Also revealed by the
research was the significant insight that the cohorts of online ITE students investigated here often
contending with several concurrent layers of complexity during their course. Despite the complexities faced
outside of their online learning environment, their achievement data is compelling evidence that this did
not impede their achievement. This emerging data emphasises that online ITE can and does support highly
motivated and capable individuals and groups to pursue productive and accessible pathways into teaching.
Moreover, they are engaged in social interactions and teaching and learning arrangements that support them
to develop the knowledge and skills to perform in this online learning environment. This evidence also
emphasises that these graduates are making important contributions to regional and remote communities
and their local schools. These data sets also warrant consideration in relation to future policy development
in this area and reconsideration of policies that exclude and hinder career opportunities for these graduates.

The database created in this study will continue to be populated to report on longitudinal patterns and trends
(Bozkurt et al., 2015) with the inclusion of entry pathway data. The study also provides some focus for
valuable further research, particularly for data about the employment and career outcomes of ITE students.
The graduates of these online ITE courses are equipped with technological knowledge and skills, and as
such, the examination of greater integration of technology into their future learning and teaching is an area
of warranted exploration. These graduate teachers are entering the profession at the same time as Digital
Technologies is being consolidated into the Australian curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (2014). Previous concerns have been raised about the knowledge, skills and capacity
of the existing teacher workforce in this domain (Falkner & Vivian, 2015); therefore, exploration of fully
online ITE graduates’ knowledge, skills and contributions to teaching in this area are all valuable
considerations for future research. Additionally, further research may demonstrate whether these teachers
contribute to the digital equity of those students who may have been previously excluded and how their
preparation for teaching has the potential to reduce the digital divide for future learners. This data will
provide broader-reaching evidence of online ITE quality through identifying these teachers’ continuing
contributions to education and communities. In addition, more exploration into effective online learning
and teaching practices in ITE will provide reports that will guide best practice in the sector.

Acknowledgements
The grant fund contribution from the university’s School of Education in which this research was conducted
is acknowledged with gratitude.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians,
June 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3238.0.55.001June%202011?OpenDocum
ent
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (ABS) (2016a). Postal areas (POAs). Retrieved from
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1270.0.55.003~July%202016~Mai
n%20Features~Postal%20Areas%20(POA)~8
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016b). Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA) 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2033.0.55.001

75
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). Digital technologies. Retrieved
from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017). Initial teacher education: Data report
2017. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-
source/research-evidence/ite-data-report/2017/ite-data-report-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=a33fe93c_8
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2018). Spotlight: The rise of online initial
teacher education: what do we know? Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/research-
evidence/spotlight/spotlight_ite_online__.pdf?sfvrsn=22a8f73c_2
Beutel, D., & Crosswell, L. (2013, October). The long way round: Graduate entry preservice teachers’
pathways into teaching. Paper presented at the TARC international conference on learning and
teaching, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards New South Wales. (2014). Online initial teacher
education in NSW. Sydney, Australia: Author. Retrieved from
https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/wcm/connect/5002786d-744e-4d46-b688-
088f5f15906d/OnlineInitialTeacherEducationReportAccess.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=
Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., … Aydin, C. H. (2015).
Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals 2009-2013. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 330–363.
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.1953
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online
higher education learning environments: A systematic review. Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Carnevale, D. (2007, January 5). Employers often distrust online degrees. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Employers-Often-Distrust/34334
Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and
face-to-face learning environments: Implications for sustainable education delivery. International
Education Studies, 3(3), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n3p36
Clarke, L. (2009). The POD Model: Using communities of practice theory to conceptualise student
teachers’ professional learning online. Computers & Education, 52(3), 521–529.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.006
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Transforming Australia’s higher education system. Canberra,
Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/109846/20130703-
0929/www.innovation.gov.au/HigherEducation/Documents/TransformingAusHigherED.pdf
de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher
education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268
Department of Education and Training. (2017). The higher education reform package. Canberra,
Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ed17-0138_-_he_-_glossy_budget_report_acc.pdf
Downing, J. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2013). Teacher educators’ readiness, preparation and perceptions of
preparing preservice teachers in a fully online environment: an exploratory study. Teacher Educator,
48(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.760023
Dyment, J. E., & Downing, J. J. (2018). Online initial teacher education students’ perceptions of using
web conferences to support professional conversations. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
43(4), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n4.5
Dyment, J., Downing, J., Hill, A., & Smith, H. (2018). “I did think it was a bit strange taking outdoor
education online”: Exploration of initial teacher education students’ online learning experiences in a
tertiary outdoor education unit. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18(1), 70–85.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2017.1341327
Eom, S. B., Wen, J. H., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes
and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal
of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
Falkner, K., & Vivian, R. (2015). A review of computer science resources for learning and teaching with
K-12 computing curricula: an Australian case study. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 390–429.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1140410

76
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Gall, T., Evans, D., & Bellerose, S. (2000). Transition to first-year university: Patterns of change in
adjustment across life domains and time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(4), 544–567.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2000.19.4.544
Gaytan, J. (2009). Analyzing online education through the lens of institutional theory and practice: The
need for research-based and -validated frameworks for planning, designing, delivering, and assessing
online instruction. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 51(2), 62–75. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/68455/
Grauer, K. (2012). A case for case study research in education. In S.R. Klein (Ed.), Action research
methods (pp. 69–79). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
He, Y. (2014). Universal design for learning in an online teacher education course: Enhancing learners’
confidence to teach online. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283-298. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no2/he_0614.pdf
Heirdsfield, A., Davis, J., Lennox, S., Walker, S., & Zhang, W. (2007). Online learning environments:
What early childhood teacher education students say. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,
28(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020701366699
Hunt, A. M. (2015). Blended online learning in initial teacher education: A professional inquiry into pre-
service teachers’ inquiry projects. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 19(2), 48–60.
Retrieved from http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/245/195
Huss, J. A. (2007). Attitudes of middle grades principals toward online teacher preparation programs in
middle grades education: Are administrators pushing “delete”? RMLE Online, 30(7), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2007.11462040
Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online distance education compared to
face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 10(1). Retrieved from
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Jahng_Krug_Zhang.htm
Kehrwald, B. A., & McCallum, F. (2015). Degrees of change: Understanding academics experiences with
a shift to flexible technology-enhanced learning in initial teacher education. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(7). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n7.4
Khoo, E., Forret, M., & Cowie, B. (2014). Lecturer-student views on successful online learning
environments. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v15i3.79
King, K. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The
Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00104-5
Lambrinidis, G. (2014). Supporting online, non-traditional students through the introduction of effective
e-learning tools in a pre-university tertiary enabling programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 36(3), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.899053
McDonnell, J., Jameson, J. M., Riesen, T., Polychronis, S., Crockett, M. A., & Brown, B. E. (2011). A
comparison of on-campus and distance teacher education programs in severe disabilities. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 34(2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410380424
McMahon, J. A., & Thompson, M. (2014). Health and physical education and the online tertiary
environment at two universities: Pre-service teachers’ perceived “readiness” to teach HPE. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n3.4
Merriam, S. B. (Ed.). (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and
expanded from case study research in education. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Meuleman, A.-M., Garrett, R., Wrench, A., & King, S. (2014). ‘Some people might say I'm thriving
but … ’: non-traditional students' experiences of university. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 19(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.945973
Mills, S., Yanes, M., & Casebeer, C. (2009). Perceptions of distance learning among faculty of a college
of education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 19–28. Retrieved from
http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no1/mills_0309.pdf
Muir, T., Milthorpe, N., Stone, C., Dyment, J., Freeman, E., & Hopwood, B. (2019). Chronicling
engagement: Students’ experience of online learning over time. Distance Education, 40(2), 262–277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1600367
NSW Education Standards Authority. (2018). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in
NSW: Policy and procedures. Sydney, Australia: NSW Government.
OECD. (2018). Education policy outlook 2018: Putting student learning at the centre. Paris, France:
Author. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301528-en
O’Shea, S., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2015). “I ‘feel’ like I am at university even though I am online.”
Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online

77
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

learning environment. Distance Education, 36(1), 41–58.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019970
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Brush, T. A., Aslan, S., & Zachmeier, A. (2018).
Addressing technology integration concerns: Asynchronous video mentoring between pre-service
teachers and exemplary technology-using in-service teachers. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 34(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3246
Ouzts, K. (2006). Sense of community in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(3),
285–296. Retrieved from https://www.infoagepub.com/qrde-issue.html?i=p54c3ca4dc8778
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students expectations of, and experiences in e-learning:
Their relation to learning achievement and course satisfaction. Computers and Education, 54, 222–
229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005
Pittaway, S. M., & Moss, T. (2014). “Initially, we were just names on a computer screen”: Designing
engagement in online teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(7), 140–156.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n7.10
Ragusa, A. T., & Crampton, A. (2017). Online learning: Cheap degrees or educational pluralization?
British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1208–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12489
Restal, P., & Laferrière, T. (2015). Digital equity and intercultural education. Education and Information
Technologies, 20(4), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9419-z
Richardson. P, & Watt, H. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and
motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1),
27–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500480290
SBS. (2018, August 18). Alarm bells sound over future teachers’ low scores. SBS News. Retrieved from
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/alarm-bells-sound-over-future-teachers-low-scores
Stacey, E., & Wiesenberg. (2007). A study of face-to-face and online teaching philosophies in Canada
and Australia. Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 19–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.926
Stokes, R. (2018, September 20). How universities lower teacher standards by focusing on profit. The
Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-universities-lower-
teacher-standards-by-focusing-on-profit-20180920-p504xg.html
Stone, C. (2012). Engaging students across distance and place. Journal of the Australian and New
Zealand Student Services Association, 39(15), 49–55. Retrieved from
https://www.anzssa.com/public/94/files/JANZSSA%20editions/JANZSSA%20April%202012_Numb
er_39.pdf
Stone, C., O'Shea, S., May, J., Delahunty, J., & Partington, Z. (2016). Opportunity through online
learning: experiences of first-in-family students in online open-entry higher education. Australian
Journal of Adult Learning, 56(2), 146–169. Retrieved from https://www.ajal.net.au/2016-2/
Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers.
Canberra, Australia: Department of Education and Training. Retrieved from
https://docs.education.gov.au/node/36783
The Guardian. (2018, August 12). Coalition ‘alarmed’ after student with Atars as low as 17.9 accepted
into teaching. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/12/coalition-
alarmed-after-students-with-atars-as-low-as-179-accepted-into-teaching
Thomas, J., Barraket, J., Wilson, C., Cook, K., Louie, Y., Holcome-James, I., … MacDonald, T. (2018).
Measuring Australia's digital divide: The Australian digital inclusion index.
https://doi.org/10.25916/5b594e4475a00
Thornton, H. (2013). Middle level professors’ perspectives regarding online teacher education: Middle
level teacher educators report their views of online teacher preparation. Middle School Journal, 44(4),
30–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2013.11461862
Tomas, L., Lasen, M., Field, E., & Skamp, K. (2015). Promoting online students' engagement and
learning in science and sustainability preservice teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 40(11). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n11.5
Wood, D., Gray-Ganter, G., & Bailey, R. (2016). Pre-commencement interviews to support transition and
retention of first year undergraduate students. Student Success, 7(2), 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v7i2.338
Wright, V. J. (2015). Is ATAR useful for predicting the success of Australian students in initial teacher
education? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9).
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n9.1
Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

78
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2019, 35(6).

Corresponding author: Rebecca Walker, [email protected]

Copyright: Articles published in the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) are available
under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Authors retain copyright in their work and grant AJET right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND
4.0.

Please cite as: Pelliccione, L., Morey, V., Walker, R., & Morrison, C. (2019). An evidence-based case for
quality online initial teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(6), 64–79.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5513

79